96 réponses à ce sujet

[vometia]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Yeah, every company is different so this could raise some interesting issues. For example, the EULA for the Starcraft Map Editor explicitely states (and you must agree to) the fact that any content you create using said editor is actually the property of Blizzard Entertainment. There's some legal precedent for this too. Like right now, I'm at work. Let's say that I (even in my break time) used the company's computer to create something of value like a new software program or invention. Because I was using the company's assets, anything I create (even in my off-the-clock break time) actually becomes the property of the company I work for. This is US law obviously. I would imagine the laws are very different in other countries.

I don't know much about Bethesda or how they structure their EULA. Maybe they won't be so strict with their toolset. But yeah, if they put no-profit bits in there things could certainly get interesting.

Certainly here in Europe, whatever might be written into the EULA can't override someone's legal rights, although a lot of them attempt to assert just that: I think it's more a case of trying their luck with people's general unawareness of the law rather than something that would ever stand up in court.  In the case of a creator's copyright, though, I really don't know how that would work: my assumption (which counts for nothing!) is that a company can't simply assert copyright on someone else's work with implicit agreements, but either way it could turn out to be a huge PR issue if not a legal one.

With that in mind, I wonder how much progress Bethesda's made with this matter or if it's more of a "wish list" at present, since MS & Sony's desire to charge for content vs. its creators' moral and/or legal rights looks quite hairy if it's without any real resolution.

[Wicked 702]

vometia wrote...

Certainly here in Europe, whatever might be written into the EULA can't override someone's legal rights, although a lot of them attempt to assert just that: I think it's more a case of trying their luck with people's general unawareness of the law rather than something that would ever stand up in court.  In the case of a creator's copyright, though, I really don't know how that would work: my assumption (which counts for nothing!) is that a company can't simply assert copyright on someone else's work with implicit agreements, but either way it could turn out to be a huge PR issue if not a legal one.

With that in mind, I wonder how much progress Bethesda's made with this matter or if it's more of a "wish list" at present, since MS & Sony's desire to charge for content vs. its creators' moral and/or legal rights looks quite hairy if it's without any real resolution.

Food for thought: Keep in mind that anything created with a toolset provided by a developer is in no way an original work. You can't claim copyright protection on something you made with someone else's assets. If the original tool doesn't belong to you, then derivatives created from that tool also do not belong to you. I was thinking that the problem would be between Bethesda & Microsoft/Sony as the latter may want to charge for some made using the former's property. I believe we were heading the same direction with our thoughts.

Anyway, enough derailing from me. Did anyone else find it interesting in the article that the developer (name escapes me) said essentially that using the toolset to create mods for the Xbox/PS3 would be relatively simple? I always imagined that there were some signficant coding differences between the various platforms, given my farily decent knowledge of software and programming in general. Will it really be that easy to create something on a PC modding tool and apply it to the console version? Seems odd.

[vometia]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Food for thought: Keep in mind that anything created with a toolset provided by a developer is in no way an original work. You can't claim copyright protection on something you made with someone else's assets. If the original tool doesn't belong to you, then derivatives created from that tool also do not belong to you. I was thinking that the problem would be between Bethesda & Microsoft/Sony as the latter may want to charge for some made using the former's property. I believe we were heading the same direction with our thoughts.

Is that really correct?  I mean one of the tools is Microsoft Windows, but I wouldn't consider Microsoft to have any valid claim on my work, even if it attempted to assert as much.  I'm aware that certain licences demand the redistribution of derivative works such as the GNU licence, but the exact technicalities are beyond my precise understanding.

I'm not attempting to be obtuse, I'm just not sure I fully understand.  What I will say is that regardless of copyright, if someone else attempted to profit from my work without my consent, it would make me much less inclined to release it for distribution; although not all modders would feel the same way, I imagine a substantial proportion would be somewhat nonplussed.  I think any attempt to force the issue could backfire rather badly.

Wicked 702 wrote...

Anyway, enough derailing from me. Did anyone else find it interesting in the article that the developer (name escapes me) said essentially that using the toolset to create mods for the Xbox/PS3 would be relatively simple? I always imagined that there were some signficant coding differences between the various platforms, given my farily decent knowledge of software and programming in general. Will it really be that easy to create something on a PC modding tool and apply it to the console version? Seems odd.

It should be fairly trivial to do so: the vast majority of the mods created for Oblivion for example are data-only and so should be interpreted in exactly the same way by the engine regardless of the platform it's running on: this includes the esm/esp mods, meshes, images and so forth.  Even the scripting being an interpreted byte-code language should run with no modification.  This is the theory, at least; whether it works that way in practice is another matter, though if the data formats do differ, I would imagine they'd have a conversion tool to make the necessary changes with the minimum of fuss.

The only areas where there are likely to be problems are with advanced mods that add libraries to the executable or make other changes along the same lines; even if there were the technical expertise to port or recreate these mods on consoles, I very much doubt that MS or Sony would permit it, especially considering some of the recent controversy with PS3 lockdowns being cracked, for instance.  Even if it was permitted, it would take a particularly dedicated modder to get their work pushed through the sort of certification process that probably wouldn't be required for data-only mods.

In short, I'd imagine the vast majority of mods that comprise the more straightforward type should run either unmodified or with a minimum amount of conversion by either Bethesda or the console makers.

[Captain Crash]

 

delikanli wrote...
oh please no mods for the consoles.. at least not free.

Why? 

Sorry that really sounds like another one of those "elitist" comments.   Console gamers have to pay for free community made mods?  



I apologise in advance if I misinterpreted you comment but I dont think I have.  I play games on PC and console and I think this idea would really be a great bridging between the two.  I really hope it pulls off.  Especially since I am most likely to get Skyrim on the 360

[Wicked 702]

vometia wrote...

Is that really correct?  I mean one of the tools is Microsoft Windows, but I wouldn't consider Microsoft to have any valid claim on my work, even if it attempted to assert as much.  I'm aware that certain licences demand the redistribution of derivative works such as the GNU licence, but the exact technicalities are beyond my precise understanding.

I'm not attempting to be obtuse, I'm just not sure I fully understand.  What I will say is that regardless of copyright, if someone else attempted to profit from my work without my consent, it would make me much less inclined to release it for distribution; although not all modders would feel the same way, I imagine a substantial proportion would be somewhat nonplussed.  I think any attempt to force the issue could backfire rather badly.

Yeah, this stuff can be somewhat confusing. I may not be using all the right words to make a clear point so forgive me a bit. It all comes down to what the manufacturer of the program intends the program to be used for (what's in the agreement). Like, for example, take the animation software Maya. When you buy that program, you're buying the right to use to it create whatever you want. The works are yours. That's part of the agreement. That's also because you're importing your own drawings or video (henceforth referred to as "assets") into the program.

Now if I buy Starcraft II, the agreement states that any maps I make are the property of Blizzard. Why is the distinction allowed? One reason is because I'm not technically CREATING anything. I'm using the assets that Blizzard gives me and putting them in some order. That tree or rock isn't really my tree or rock. I didn't create them. Just think of it this way, do you ever see modders offering their products for sale? Oh don't get me wrong, you'll get the odd product here or there like Counter-Strike that actually ends up being a retail product but that's clearly with the blessing of Valve. The CS creators would have been sued to no end if they tried to sell CS without permission from Valve because their mod uses the assets that Valve created (mostly the engine).

The reason Microsoft can't lay claim is because you aren't using Windows' assets to make a for-profit product. Windows is just the table that the canvas is on. And I agree with you. It would be very odd if Bethesda suddenly decided to take Modder A's campaign and Modder B's sidequests and package/sell them to console players. I can't imagine how the modders would feel about something like that, especially if they were left out.

Side note: Just to throw a fun wrench in the works, I wonder how many people know that whenever you post a picture onto Facebook it becomes the property of Facebook to do whatever they want with. In fact, anything you post on their service becomes their property. Some people consider that a very scary situation.

vometia wrote...
It should be fairly trivial to do so: the vast majority of the mods created for Oblivion for example are data-only and so should be interpreted in exactly the same way by the engine regardless of the platform it's running on: this includes the esm/esp mods, meshes, images and so forth.  Even the scripting being an interpreted byte-code language should run with no modification.  This is the theory, at least; whether it works that way in practice is another matter, though if the data formats do differ, I would imagine they'd have a conversion tool to make the necessary changes with the minimum of fuss.

The only areas where there are likely to be problems are with advanced mods that add libraries to the executable or make other changes along the same lines; even if there were the technical expertise to port or recreate these mods on consoles, I very much doubt that MS or Sony would permit it, especially considering some of the recent controversy with PS3 lockdowns being cracked, for instance.  Even if it was permitted, it would take a particularly dedicated modder to get their work pushed through the sort of certification process that probably wouldn't be required for data-only mods.

In short, I'd imagine the vast majority of mods that comprise the more straightforward type should run either unmodified or with a minimum amount of conversion by either Bethesda or the console makers.

Thank you for your response. I'm actually pretty ignorant on exactly how the modding process works. I only really used a couple Starcraft tools to make statistical enhancement and balance tweaks for fun. Thank you again for the education.

[NvVanity]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

How does ownership of mods work? Is the content owned by the modders meaning that Bethesda would need permission to use their work or pay the modders for their work to distribute it? Or does Bethesda have access to it regardless and can distribute anyone's work regardless of permission?

When it comes to Oblivion modding there wasn't really "ownership" persay. It was part of Oblivion and it was Bethesda's property. The majority of mod sites handled the ownership in a standard way. You made the mod, it's your file, if somebody steals it the site hosts will step in and deal with it. Now unfortunately there were some rather "notorious" incidents of mod stealing that resulted in one of Oblivion's most popular mod makers had his work stolen repeatably by another popular modder and nobody stepped in to do anything.

The incident ended with the guy pulling all his work off. Then being attacked via hacking and all that stuff since they could no longer profit off of his work and just felt life trying to bully him.

Basically the current rules work for modding but the more popular mod makers seem to have some leverage on hosting sites to do what they please. Not that every popular modder does it, some do and are total jerks.

[gastovski]

Captain Crash wrote...

 

delikanli wrote...
oh please no mods for the consoles.. at least not free.

Why? 

Sorry that really sounds like another one of those "elitist" comments.   Console gamers have to pay for free community made mods?  



I apologise in advance if I misinterpreted you comment but I dont think I have.  I play games on PC and console and I think this idea would really be a great bridging between the two.  I really hope it pulls off.  Especially since I am most likely to get Skyrim on the 360

beside mods RPGs shouldnt be making for the consoles at the first place

[scottelite]

gastovski wrote...

Captain Crash wrote...

 

delikanli wrote...
oh please no mods for the consoles.. at least not free.

Why? 

Sorry that really sounds like another one of those "elitist" comments.   Console gamers have to pay for free community made mods?  



I apologise in advance if I misinterpreted you comment but I dont think I have.  I play games on PC and console and I think this idea would really be a great bridging between the two.  I really hope it pulls off.  Especially since I am most likely to get Skyrim on the 360

beside mods RPGs shouldnt be making for the consoles at the first place

[v_ware]

Take note of this Bioware. Take note.

[Fufu12]

v_ware wrote...

Take note of this Bioware. Take note.

Of what exactly?

If people want mods play on PC. After all the **** we get for buying DA2 they could at least give us a toolset.

[Captain Crash]

Whats DA2 got to do with Bethesda and Skyrim?


Community creations don't have to be purely limited to the PC and its great this has been recognised and looked at. There are a lot of creative players on consoles who would love the chance to be able to help add too community creations.

[vometia]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Yeah, this stuff can be somewhat confusing. I may not be using all the right words to make a clear point so forgive me a bit. It all comes down to what the manufacturer of the program intends the program to be used for (what's in the agreement). Like, for example, take the animation software Maya. When you buy that program, you're buying the right to use to it create whatever you want. The works are yours. That's part of the agreement. That's also because you're importing your own drawings or video (henceforth referred to as "assets") into the program.
[snip]

I still find it a bit of a grey area: my assumption would've been that even if it's just using someone else's assets in a particular configuration, additional work has still been done by someone.  But as I said, that's an assumption, and I'm really not sure about how copyright views derivative works, especially in different jurisdictions: and it's the latter point that could make things difficult, I guess.

In terms of Oblivion and other TES mods, they often tend to be released with new assets that are the modders' original creations and which I'd imagine are certainly not claimable by anyone else: even in my own modest efforts I've created new meshes and textures, some of which are based on existing works but many of which are entirely new, and as far as I'm concerned I retain the copyright on any new material.

Wicked 702 wrote...

Side note: Just to throw a fun wrench in the works, I wonder how many people know that whenever you post a picture onto Facebook it becomes the property of Facebook to do whatever they want with. In fact, anything you post on their service becomes their property. Some people consider that a very scary situation.

I remember there being a huge fuss about that a while back, though I don't recall what the outcome was.  I'm still not entirely sure that they can use the "implicit agreement" thing to claim copyright, though they may well be able to use it for promotional material without the owner's permission.  Copyright law is a hideously tangled area and one that few people seem to understand well, including me.  I have seen other sites with what seem to be rather onerous EULAs, and even if they turn out not be enforceable it's put me off using them.

Wicked 702 wrote...

Thank you for your response. I'm actually pretty ignorant on exactly how the modding process works. I only really used a couple Starcraft tools to make statistical enhancement and balance tweaks for fun. Thank you again for the education.

No problem. The nature of modding varies a lot from game to game, but I like the way Bethesda have implemented it: it's a nice, clean system that doesn't involve any nasty coding rituals like some other games, and as such it's accessible to a larger number of players and as relevant to this topic, in theory it should be very portable.

[Chromie]

Dunstan wrote...

I'm getting Skyrim on the Xbox 360, so this would be good in a way. For weapons or armour re-textures ect. But really from what I've heard most mods are just for nude npc's, in-game prostitutes and chainmail bikinis, so I doubt I'd be missing much without them.

Lol most?

Where are you hearing this **** from?

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

You should actually look up a mod site before posting what you've "heard." There are tons of great mods out there that have nothing to do with what people have been telling you Dunstan, then again you likely don't mod very many games.

[happy_daiz]

You guys just made my day. Kitties for everyone!

 

[legion999]

gastovski wrote...

Captain Crash wrote...

 

delikanli wrote...
oh please no mods for the consoles.. at least not free.

Why? 

Sorry that really sounds like another one of those "elitist" comments.   Console gamers have to pay for free community made mods?  



I apologise in advance if I misinterpreted you comment but I dont think I have.  I play games on PC and console and I think this idea would really be a great bridging between the two.  I really hope it pulls off.  Especially since I am most likely to get Skyrim on the 360

beside mods RPGs shouldnt be making for the consoles at the first place

LOLWUT? Is the only thing to say to that.

Anyway hopefully consoles can get mods on Skyrim but I'm not getting my hopes up for it.

[Ulous]

You could mod Oblivion on the XBOX 360.... to an extent.

Modifié par Ulous, 23 septembre 2011 - 08:34 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

If Sony is the nicer of the two consoles, I can see their implementation of PC mods would definitely move Microsoft into allowing it as well. Those two companies are always at each other's throats.

[frustratemyself]

Ringo12 wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

I'm getting Skyrim on the Xbox 360, so this would be good in a way. For weapons or armour re-textures ect. But really from what I've heard most mods are just for nude npc's, in-game prostitutes and chainmail bikinis, so I doubt I'd be missing much without them.

Lol most?

Where are you hearing this **** from?

I'm with Dunstan. While there are some good mods that add variation to character creators or face morphs etc there seem to be an awful lot of pervy ones on the Nexus sites (tnt anyone?) for various games.

Of the mods I saw when I was playing Oblivion most were game breakingly overpowered equipment or quests that didn't actually work. Not a huge loss to do without them on console.

[slimgrin]

This cracks me up. It's never going to happen, unless console players want to pay for mods.

[Chromie]

frustratemyself wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

I'm getting Skyrim on the Xbox 360, so this would be good in a way. For weapons or armour re-textures ect. But really from what I've heard most mods are just for nude npc's, in-game prostitutes and chainmail bikinis, so I doubt I'd be missing much without them.

Lol most?

Where are you hearing this **** from?

I'm with Dunstan. While there are some good mods that add variation to character creators or face morphs etc there seem to be an awful lot of pervy ones on the Nexus sites (tnt anyone?) for various games.

Of the mods I saw when I was playing Oblivion most were game breakingly overpowered equipment or quests that didn't actually work. Not a huge loss to do without them on console.

Gamebreaking? Where is Naughty he can set things right.

There are ofcourse adult mods on nexus but there are also way more mods.

Oblivion mods just look at Quests and Adventures 655 mods right there. How about Magic- Spells and Enchantments 425 mods in that category and look at Skyrim. Bethesda took some ideas from mods and added them to the game. Thunderstorm spell was a mod.

Gameplay Effects and Changes especially 2711 mods and really make the game more challegning, balanced and make immersive.

Really your talking out of experience.

slimgrin wrote...

This cracks me up. It's never going to happen, unless console players want to pay for mods.

I believe Unreal on the PS3 supports mods. Not sure to what extent such as overhauls so I can't comment.

Modifié par Ringo12, 23 septembre 2011 - 11:25 .

[Captain Crash]

Actually Microsoft have been really open with Bethesda about it according to Todd. Its not about money, but its about not messing up peoples save files and games. You cant backup a 360 like you can a PC. Thus why there is caution from Microsofts part in regards to it so far.